Legislators must become more visible to
their constituents if they are to be really
true representatives of all the people,
rather than the politically active few. Visi-
bility can only be achieved by having a
small legislature, one that functions in a
manner that can be followed by all inter-
ested citizens, and by having members who
are clearly accountable to a given elec-
torate.
In a bicameral legislature, we have twice
as many members as we need, two people
doing one job.
An interested citizen, trying to follow
the present legislative course of a proposal
or bill, finds that it is more complicated
than a Perry Mason mystery. Account-
ability is shared to a degree that is non-
existent.
We hear much about the need for checks
and balances within the legislature itself,
but 1 maintain that this is a need only as
long as some senators and some delegates
are willing to vote for some bills with the
hope that the other house will negate their
action.
I submit that two houses provide less re-
sponsibility, less of everything, in fact, ex-
cept jobs, costs and confusion. A bicameral
legislature is really a house divided against
itself, incapable of acting effectively to
meet its responsibilities; not only of being
the chief policy-maker, but of being a
proper check on the executive department
that governs.
In a one-house legislature, every vote
has meaning. Every legislator is account-
able. Every member is visible. A legislator
who is serving in a unicameral body is
elected to represent a single-member dis-
trict, and will enjoy a prestige not known
in our State today. He will be one of a
kind, just as a member of Congress. In
debate, in committee, he will speak with
authority. He will not be one of three or
seven or more representing a district. He
will not be a member of a lower house or
an upper house. He will be a member of
"The House," the General Assembly. He
will be the one, the only elected representa-
tive of his district in the legislature.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sollins,
you have 45 seconds.
DELEGATE SOLLINS: Thank you.
Fellow delegates, if we strengthen the
legislature in this manner, I submit that
we will be strengthening every component
part by strengthening every member, and |
we will be strengthening the legislative
process and the legislative body.
One further point: The Washington Post
and the Baltimore Sun in their editorial
columns have both supported unicamer-
alism. The Washington Post has suggested
that perhaps unicameralism is too daring
for this Convention. I suggest that it is
not daring, but a necessity that requires
unicameralism.
Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Gallagher?
DELEGATE GALLAGHER: Mr. Chair-
man, I yield for three minutes to Delegate
Malkus.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Malkus?
DELEGATE MALKUS: Mr. President,
ladies and gentlemen of the Constitutional
Convention, we had numerous witnesses be-
fore the Committee on the Legislative
Branch who constituted practically every-
body who knows anything about the Gen-
eral Assembly of Maryland. The vote for
bicameralism was 33. The vote for uni-
cameralism was 11.
Now, of these, of the 11, five were out-
of-state people.
It is really interesting to note that men
like Charles Della, who represents Labor,
and William Wilson, Cookman Boyd, who
represents Management, agreed on having
two houses. With the exception of Tommy
D'Alesandro, and some two or three mem-
bers of the House of Delegates, some of
whom are in this body, everyone else stated
that he thought the present system was the
best system.
Now, Mr. President, if we are not going
to listen to the witnesses and the prepon-
derance of evidence for the two-house sys- .
tem, then for what reason do we have
testimony?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Malkus,
you have one-half minute.
DELEGATE MALKUS: Thank you, sir.
I would like to bring the attention of
this body to the fact that bicameralism had
its birth in the British Parliament in the
14th Century, and has continued since that
time. Bicameralism came into being in
Maryland in 1650, and has been with us
since that time. No one except those who
speak theoretically, in my opinion have
given a reason for needing to change now.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Hanson. |
